THE GM FOOD INDUSTRY'S INSISTENCE ON KEEPING SECRETS FURTHER EXPOSES
ITS PR SHORTCOMINGS

HIGHLIGHT:
By PAUL HOLMES, currently president of The Holmes Group and editor
of
www.holmesreport.com

Let's say your company makes a massive technical advance, one that both
improves the quality of the product you sell and has the potential to solve
one of the world's most intractable problems. You'd be ready to spend millions
to promote it, right? Well, not if you're in the genetically modified (GM)
food business. Then you spend dollars 4.5 million on a campaign to keep
your new technology secret. Faced with a ballot initiative that calls on
food companies to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients,
the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law is trying to sell Oregonians
on the idea that such labeling would cost millions in 'government bureaucracy
and red tape.'

The campaign's premise is a lie, of course. The industry isn't concerned
about red tape - or if it is, it's a secondary issue. What truly worries
the industry - the reason it has resisted labeling since GM foods were
introduced a decade ago - is that consumers will select unmodified foods
if given a choice. So the campaign is about denying them that choice, but
calling the group the Coalition Against Informed Consumers probably sounded
like a bad idea.

Faced with labeling demands, the GM food industry falls back on the
fact that the FDA considers labels unnecessary. After I discussed this
subject in a recent column, a Monsanto rep pointed out (correctly) that
the company does label its products, which it sells to farmers rather than
consumers, but the FDA 'has determined that the biotech crops currently
grown and subsequent ingredients don't need to be labeled because biotech
food is no different than conventional food.'

But, the FDA's position notwithstanding, there is clearly a segment
of the public that wants to know how its food is made, and it is hard to
see any moral basis on which companies would deny that right. Apparently,
the increased corporate transparency we've heard about doesn't encompass
this kind of information. Instead, the industry is essentially saying,
'Trust us, you don't need to know.'

But at the same time, it is also saying, 'We don't trust you. We think
you're so stupid that you won't be able to use the labeling information
intelligently. You're not smart enough to understand the science or to
process our arguments. Instead, you will be influenced by hysterical Luddites
who want to ban our product, and you won't buy it.'

But 21st-century PR isn't about controlling the flow of information
or deciding what information the public has a right to. It's about putting
information in context. If the GM food industry doesn't believe its PR
people are smart enough to explain its products' benefits, it should either
hire new PR people or get a new product.

Fighting against an informed public only creates the impression that
it has a sinister secret to hide.

- Paul Holmes has spent the past 15 years writing about the PR business
for publications including PRWeek, Inside PR, and Reputation Management.

In July, Bill Lunch, an Oregon State University political scientist
who monitors Oregon campaigns, predicted that Measure 23 would be
the subject of the most expensive ballot measure campaign in state
history. Insurance companies and other opponents would spend as much
as $10 million to defeat the Health Care for All Oregon initiative,
Lunch said.

That hasn't happened. Instead, the big-money proposal on the November
ballot is proving to be Measure 27, which would require the labeling of
genetically engineered foods sold in Oregon. Opponents have raised $4.6
million to fight the measure, according to campaign finance documents
filed Monday - more than 10 times as much as has been collected by
opponents of the universal health care plan. The Measure 27 campaign is
well on its way toward becoming the most costly Oregon has ever seen.

Spending on ballot measure campaigns is a reliable barometer of
sentiment among any affected interests that have the ability to raise
lots of money. A costly campaign against a measure is a sure sign that
they see it as a threat, and that they take the threat seriously. Lunch
is probably not the only Oregonian surprised to find a seemingly modest
food labeling measure judged as a far bigger threat than a proposal to
scrap the entire health care finance system and replace it with a
single-payer plan.

There is a campaign against Measure 23 - opponents, mostly health
insurance companies, have raised a little more than $400,000 to fight
the proposal. That's nearly 20 times as much as supporters have raised.
But if the insurance companies and related interests saw a real threat
from Measure 23, they'd spend millions to kill it.

Instead, the campaign against Measure 27 has drawn the big money -
mostly from companies that produce and market genetically engineered
food products, with an assist from a trade association representing
grocers. Supporters have raised a little more than $25,000, about a
half-percent as much as the opponents. The campaign finance reports
suggest that opponents fear Measure 27, and that they think it could
pass even without much of a vote-yes campaign.

Such fears may be justified. People want to know what's in their food.
Any campaign to deny this information to consumers must overcome the
suspicion that opponents of labeling have something to hide. The
no-on-27 campaign faces the challenge of convincing Oregonians that
labeling would be burdensome, expensive and unnecessary. Getting voters
to accept that message won't be cheap.

Opponents also understand that more than Oregon's relatively small
food market is at stake. The Measure 27 campaign takes place against
the backdrop of rising global concern about genetically engineered
foods.

From Europe to Africa to Asia, genetically modified foods are
encountering demands for testing, regulation and even bans. The United
States has been largely immune to this concern, despite the fact that an
estimated 70 percent of products on American grocery shelves now contain
at least some genetically modified ingredients. To opponents, Measure 27
looks like the spark from a distant brushfire that has blown into their
own back yards, and that must be stamped out before it spreads.

***

3. Novartis, Sulzer face lawsuit on South African apartheid
links

[shortened]
http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_684345.html?menu

US attorney Ed Fagan filed a consolidated class action suit in New York
against Novartis AG and Sulzer AG, amongst others, on behalf of victims
of South Africa's former apartheid regime.

Fagan, who in 1998 forced Swiss Banks into a $1.25 billion settlement
for victims of the Holocaust, is now accusing the banks of financing the
former apartheid regime through investments and debt restructuring, Heeb
said.

The other companies named in the new class action suit had allegedly
exploited the black majority by taking advantage of the discriminating
racial laws, Heeb continued.

Fagan also filed a suit in New Jersey targeting, amongst others, Nestle
and Roche, and additional suits are being prepared, Heeb added.

***

4. WFP says seeks non-GM food aid for Zambia

October 7, 2002
Reuters

LUSAKA - The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) was cited as saying on
Monday that 12,000 tonnes of GM-free maize had begun arriving in Zambia
and the agency was seeking another 16,000 tonnes from within southern Africa.
Zambia, one of six countries in the region battling severe food shortages,
banned all genetically-modified food aid in August, citing health concerns.

The story says that the ban remains in place until the government establishes
through its own tests if GM foods are safe for human consumption. Aid agencies
have been scrambling to find GM-free food aid for the country.